An area where two trees fell is roped off. The trees were slated for removal.

Photo: Sarah Rice, Special To The Chronicle

An area where two trees fell is roped off. The trees were slated...

Image 4 of 4

Notices detailing plans to renovate the recreation center and playground in Glen Canyon Park are stapled to the trees in San Francisco, Calif., Friday, October 19, 2012. Under the plans 58 trees would be removed and 163 new ones would be planted. Two of the trees slated for removal recently fell, and some of the remaining ones are hazardous or in poor condition.

It is an issue of constant conflict in San Francisco. Neighborhoods are torn asunder, city officials are berated, and groups stage demonstrations. It may very well be the single most contentious problem in the city.

Trees.

This is a city that loves its foliage, particularly if it has been in place for a while. But that's just the beginning. Activists not only have strong views against removing trees, changing parks and open space, they have a process that can make it work for them.

The City Charter makes it possible for a single person to stall a project for months, simply by filing an appeal. You could say that it is the most democratic possible process. Unless you're hoping to upgrade a playground for your kids, or renovate an aging recreation center. Then it is intensely frustrating.

This time the issue is Glen Canyon Park in Diamond Heights. The Recreation and Park Department has a $5.8 million renovation project for the area. The children's playground will be redone, tennis courts will be moved and improved, and a new, safer drop-off area will be created for parents with children.

In the final minutes of the last day of the 15-day public comment period, Anastasia Glikshtern filed an appeal of the building permit for improvements to the recreation building. Glikshtern did not return calls for comment. But her appeal has stalled all work until a Dec. 5 hearing.

Supervisor Scott Wiener, whose district includes the park, said: "The appeal is well intentioned but misguided."

Single person's actions

But, as Wiener said, the larger issue is the provision in the City Charter that allows a single person to file an appeal and stop a project. This year, a $10 million renovation of Lafayette Park was stalled by a single dissenting appeal. That project is still on hold.

Wiener said he and Supervisor Mark Farrell "are looking at whether it is right for one person to hold up an entire project."

But changing the appeals process needs voter approval. Wiener and Farrell are considering changing the fees. Perhaps there could be a sliding scale so that the more people who support the appeal, the lower the application fee.

That's a promising idea, but it wouldn't change the Glen Park situation. Those familiar with typical neighborhood disputes will note that we are now at the stage where each side is spouting wildly different facts.

Just for starters, Rec and Park said it will result in the removal of 58 trees with 163 replanted. The Forest Alliance said that's just the start and eventually Glen Canyon could lose more than 400 trees. And Glikshtern's appeal said the entire process should be delayed until the city's report on the Natural Areas Plan is finished in 2013.

Michael Rice, president of the Glen Park Association neighborhood group, said the process has taken 10 months, there have been 11 community meetings, and the area where the 58 trees will be removed is in another part of the park from the natural areas canyon, so the Natural Areas Plan isn't involved. And there is nothing in this project that would cut down anywhere near 400 trees.

A compromise seems unlikely.

"Not everyone is going to agree," Wiener said. "That's the nature of any public project."

But now, after almost a year of discussion, it seems pretty clear that there is only one resolution that would make the critics happy - do everything the way they want it.

"I would say Rec and Park could come out here and we could say, 'OK, let's move this here and this here,' " said Steve Labovsky, who supports Glikshtern's appeal. "Because we need to preserve these venerable old trees that people absolutely love."

Putting things on hold

And, what if Rec and Park and supporters of the renovation do not agree to the changes?

I think we know the answer to that. Use the City Charter to file an appeal and put everything on hold.